Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 193.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 10:08:52 AM

-- ranting and raving--

If Bip101 is such a tiny minority (yet it was endorsed by major companies),
why are you spending so much energy on it?

Regarding Peter R, what if he's "just a man"?

Obviously he has enough intellectual clout to
elicit a response from the devs.

I think Greg Maxwell is smart enough to filter
out who deserves a response worthy of his
time and who doesn't, without your help, MKAY? Roll Eyes

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on September 09, 2015, 08:22:58 AM

It seems to me like you guys have completely departed from the discussion. Let's get back on track, shall we? If we honestly asses the situation there is a low chance that XT or BIP101 are going to happen, especially if Core implements some BIP (related to the block size and scaling).

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 09, 2015, 08:01:19 AM

Quote

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Who said that? As far as I see there is 0 support from the miners. Anyone can easily verify this here. I doubt that it is going to change anytime soon (if ever).

XT and BIP101 are born dead.
Beside the small fuss they managed with all their fakes accounts, fake nodes etc.. they are just a buncha squeaking minority.
There is no point discussing it besides uncovering the real truth that lies behind such pathetic attempt at highjacking bitcoin.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 09, 2015, 08:01:19 AM

I can't believe XT's brilliant plan to take over Bitcoin by using a single port at Slush's spoofed XT pool wasn't a resounding success!

See this is what really interest me, such rushing into it.. WHY?

Why Gavin felt such urge to implement an untested/muddled solution that would have endangers bitcoin's security/decentralization and in such a radical way?
(plus, 20MB then 8MB wtf? does he think we're that stupid? just throwing random numbers at us? think we'll follow him wherever he goes? - even at CIA?)

He could have done it more smoothly within the next couple of years without raising as much suspicions as he did whilst hastening the whole internet with his monster FUD.

Also, why the need for implementing a new "governance"?
Wasn't his experience at the Ph0undation enough? Roll Eyes

My 2 cents tells me that looking at the rest of the financial world, they are indeed quite pressured by time.
OTOH Bitcoin is here to stay, and in its current paradigm, it is the best alternative to ~~protect~~ secure your wealth before the final "reset", "shut down" or whatever financial disaster looming upon us.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Trent Russell on September 09, 2015, 09:28:29 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 07:01:37 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 09, 2015, 05:45:24 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 02:38:15 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? Roll Eyes

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with.. Roll Eyes

No one should be pressured to give identifying details about their life. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

Sure, altho he is the one that keeps on shilling his pseudoscience over the bitcoin's dev mailing list, wasting people's time that are fully public.
They got nothing to hide.. Does peter?
Hell even dat troll stolfi has came out at some point to somehow try at back his stuff up!

You dont throw your 'enlightening' opinion or whatever WPs, pretending it to somehow be valid without backing your 'research' by a full curriculum vitae.
And even more regarding the academics.

SO PETER, WHO ARE YOU?

Quote

Also, references to the STASI are not an example of Godwin. An example of Godwin would be comparing doxxing people to outing people who were helping hide Jews during the war.

lol wtf, so smart, completely redirecting the subject, im not doxxing anyone.
why the sudden interest in defending the anon peter? dont you think he is old enough to simply answer? or are you one of peter's proxy account too?
junior member, suddenly caring enough to post in here, talking bets n stuff. Roll Eyes

Trent Russell

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

willmathforcrypto.com

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 07:01:37 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 09, 2015, 05:45:24 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 02:38:15 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? Roll Eyes

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with.. Roll Eyes

No one should be pressured to give identifying details about their life. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

Also, references to the STASI are not an example of Godwin. An example of Godwin would be comparing doxxing people to outing people who were helping hide Jews during the war.

Trent Russell

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

willmathforcrypto.com

Quote from: Peter R on September 08, 2015, 01:05:22 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 12:57:39 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 08, 2015, 12:50:44 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 12:45:52 PM

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions. For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'. But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block. The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.' This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work). I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.

There is no ambiguity in that definition.

While I'm not on Peter R's side in the XT debate, he's correct about this. The terms of this potential "bet" are clear. In any case, even if there were some ambiguity, that's one reason there's a neutral third party in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Now for something completely different. Consider this modified version of "the bet": Peter R and anti-Peter R each put 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig with a neutral third party. One year from now, the 2 BTC are paid out to Peter R on every chain that has had a block over 1MB. The 2 BTC are paid out to anti-Peter R on every chain that has not had a block over 1MB. This would actually give people a way to trade potential coins on potential multiple forks before the potential forks actually occur. It's a little surprising there aren't services offering something like this, given how adamant many people on different sides seem to be.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

It seems to me like you guys have completely departed from the discussion. Let's get back on track, shall we? If we honestly asses the situation there is a low chance that XT or BIP101 are going to happen, especially if Core implements some BIP (related to the block size and scaling).

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 09, 2015, 08:01:19 AM

Quote

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Who said that? As far as I see there is 0 support from the miners. Anyone can easily verify this here. I doubt that it is going to change anytime soon (if ever).

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: tvbcof on September 09, 2015, 02:04:03 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

Quote

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.

I bet the guy was trolling those reddit ijuts. Funny one way or another.

It was especially droll that he said with a straight face that he set up 10 nodes then laments that people are 'gaming' things.

Not sure if trolling or very stupid. Tongue

Doesn't matter; the payout of imaginary_username being forced to write two pages of rationalizations is comedy gold topped with tears of unfathomable sadness.

I can't believe XT's brilliant plan to take over Bitcoin by using a single port at Slush's spoofed XT pool wasn't a resounding success!

Quote

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Not for long! CoreDefense's 25Gb lulzcannon is going to blast them off the face of the internet... Cheesy

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on September 09, 2015, 05:45:24 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 02:38:15 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? Roll Eyes

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with.. Roll Eyes

Im not talking to you. Please move along, noob.

Or is this Peter R's pitiful way of eluding the question?

Are you Peter R?! Grin

Can't help but notice you both somehow have the same fallaciously bourgeois writing style, you just seems a bit less academic, just cheering up whatever the other one says.

TooDumbForBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 01:20:22 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 08, 2015, 01:05:22 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 12:57:39 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 08, 2015, 12:50:44 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 12:45:52 PM

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions. For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'. But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block. The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.' This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work). I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.

There is no ambiguity in that definition.

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible. (You a tech writer? If so, just on contract or genuine interest?) If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'. I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed. It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news. I think it more unlikely than not though.

1. The bet-defining blockchain one year from now will be the blockchain attracting the most hash power.

2. Define "needed".

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 02:38:15 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? Roll Eyes

And you? From the STASI?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on September 09, 2015, 02:24:16 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.

PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? Roll Eyes

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

Quote

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.

ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

The 1MB'ers are downvoted here as well; not only on reddit. Make a poll and you'll realise that you can't win the community with your language.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: hdbuck on September 09, 2015, 01:49:51 AM

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

Quote

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.

h ttp://data.whicdn.com/images/57338344/large.jpg

ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

I bet the guy was trolling those reddit ijuts. Funny one way or another.

It was especially droll that he said with a straight face that he set up 10 nodes then laments that people are 'gaming' things.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

Quote

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.

ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

RoooooR

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

GigTricks.io | A CRYPTO ECOSYSTEM FOR ON-DEMAND EC

nah, Bitcoin XT isn't the biggest FAIL in altcoin history

Just the biggest FRAUD

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: marky89 on September 08, 2015, 04:52:08 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 04:39:06 PM

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

I think it won't be possible even with a fee market with unlimited size blocks. The fees will make it uneconomical. But isn't Lighting network supposed to be able to do such small transactions?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: marky89 on September 08, 2015, 04:52:08 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 04:39:06 PM

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

I'm with you. fractions of a cent aren't important, but I reject the "Bitcoin is only for people who don't mind paying $100 transaction fee" mentality.

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 04:54:15 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 04:39:06 PM

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

We're telling you it doesn't, can't and never will.

Use VISAchain for that.

You can argue about the future till you're blue in the face,
but Bitcoin actually CAN and DOES handle transactions of all sizes
right now, ya knucklehead.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 04:39:06 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on September 08, 2015, 04:13:38 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 03:09:42 PM

Its also interesting to think about: What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times. To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect. The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible. There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.)

The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101. You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist. If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call. I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause.

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

We're telling you it doesn't, can't and never will.

Use VISAchain for that.

marky89

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 502

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 08, 2015, 04:39:06 PM

I hear you, but respectfully disagree. I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 193. (Read 378996 times)